CC_Minutes_2016_0822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 22, 2016 Page 40 vise them, but as business owners and/or tenants, they had an obligation to be aware of fire codes. Mr. O'Neill further clarified that, while staff had tried to work with Mr. Dorso and his representatives, and would continue to do so, based on the violations observed that day, staff could have immediately shut the build- ing down, opining that many fire departments around the metropolitan area and in the country would have done just that if that had observed similar conditions and issues. Councilmember Etten asked if staff had been back to the site since that inspection. Mr. O'Neill responded that staff had visited the site three different times. While the property owner and his attorney seemed surprised how the City Build- ing Department had become involved, Mr. O'Neill stated that state statute re- quired the Fire Department to notify the Building Official of code violations and to work together to resolve those violations. Mr. O'Neill advised that immediate- ly after the initial inspection by the Fire Department, he had alerted the City's Building Official, and involved them in the process addressing it as a team con- cept. � Specific to the statement made by Mr. Supina as a building tenant, Mr. O'Neill agreed they had made progress in cleaning out building access points; however, he also noted numerous violations that remained yet to be resolved. Mr. O'Neill noted that back on July 7, 2016, the property owner had contacted staff to show they were making progress and that the sprinkler system was open and operating. However, Mr. O'Neill stated there was an apparent difference of opinion as to whether it was operational or not, and until it could be verified, it remained out of compliance, and depending on the tenant locations related to the remainder of the building, and how much of the building was in use and protect- ed. Mr. O'Neill stated that was the intent of the meeting scheduled later this week with the sprinkler contractor to confirm compliance in person, and not via the mail or through an email, but face to face to avoid any further confusion or delay in the process. Mr. O'Neill advised that on the day of his last visit, the sprinkler system contractors and other property representatives were not on site. Councilmember Etten asked if the Certificate of Occupancy required all areas of the building to be in compliance, or if certain areas of the building could be shut off if not used. Mr. Englund responded that it was dependent on how much of the building was removed from its current state, and based on certain requirements accordingly. Mr. Englund noted there were variables concerning the fire protection system from one area of the building to another; and whether compliance could be